Scott Greenfield has a thoughtful post about a shift in the blogosophere. Namely, blogs contain less analysis and more "Hey, check this article out" posts.
Around the blawgosphere, I've noticed that many blawgers are posting about stories and decision, providing quotes or descriptions, and then moving to the next story. What happened to the analysis? Have blawgers decided that it's enough to be another aggregator of news on a particular area of the law, without adding any value to their posts? So it seems.
We already have aggregators in the blawgosphere, places we go to see what's new in the world and to find links to new decisions and news stories. We don't need 50 blawgs doing the same thing. What is disappearing is the depth of thought and experience that blawgers bring to these stories and decisions, the "value-added" part of blawging that makes a post worth reading. If you aren't bringing something new to the table, then why bother?
My answer: I don't bother. Finding the "right stuff" to blog about turned a fun hobby into a bothersome endeavor. I used ask myself whether a post was "on topic," or whether something was "serious" enough. I stopped blogging for a couple of months because the blog had turned into a another job - except one for which I did not get paid. The hour I spend on blogging is less money. Blogging is, for me, a leisure activity. I don't factor opportunity costs when I go to the movie. And I no longer factor opportunity costs when I blog.
I have a lot of friends who read this blog. Many things I post are unstated shout outs to them. Or it's stuff that I would otherwise send in an e-mail. What does used car buying have to do with the law? There could be a hook, but I mainly posted it as a general warning to friends and readers. Many posts are like that. Instead of sending off an e-mail, I post it here.
Then again, I have a huge library of Section 1983 materials. People often arrived to C&F after Googling for information on 42 U.S.C. 1983. Lexis-Nexis even accesses my posts, and keeps them in its databases.
I also have a library of criminal law posts. Oftentimes people from the Department of Justice reach C&F after Googling for criminal law information.
Whether I'm posting something trivial like a picture of Barack Obama, or something serious like case analysis, I'm doing it for the same reason: It's relaxing. Yes, blogging about abnormal personalities and cases is a form of relaxation for me. So, too, is blogging about Barack Obama the Supreme Alpha Male of the Universe.
I realize that blogging "off topic" can have an effect on readership. That's fine by me. I've had enough accolades in my short life. I don't get a buzz anymore when people talk about me. I don't Google my own name, to see what people are saying - or not saying.
I get a buzz posting stuff that is interesting to me. If that means that I don't add value for some, my answer is: What have you given me to entitle yourself to value? No reader has ever sent me money or even bought me a book to blog about. Why then should I trip if I'm not "adding value" to the discussion?
Incidentally, in many instances I do add value. But that's not my goal. My goal is to relax... to have an outlet... to discuss interesting things with the world. If others disapprove, cool. Really.
In a pluralistic society, by definition people will disapprove. We all have our communities. If this is not yours, that's all to the good. You'll find a nice community somewhere, and I'll keep conversing with my nice community right here.
